Product & UX Design
Product and UX design is the work of deciding how software should behave and look so that people can actually use it. We do research, interaction design, interface design and design systems — for new products, and for existing ones where usage data or support volume is saying that something is wrong.
The problem
When the interface is costing you
Support answers the same question every week
It is not a knowledge gap. A screen fails to say what people need at the moment they need it, so the interface is being explained by humans one conversation at a time — a cost that appears in the support budget rather than in the product one, which is why it survives for years.
Every screen is invented from scratch
There is no shared component set, so two engineers build the same dropdown differently, spacing drifts between pages, and a change to a common pattern means finding every place it was rebuilt. Design review becomes an argument about details that should have been decided once.
The redesign looked better and the numbers did not move
It shipped, it was well received internally, and completion on the flow that matters is unchanged — because nobody established what was actually failing before deciding to change how it looked.
What a real fix takes
Design earns its money in the part clients are most willing to cut. Skip research and what you get is a confident guess — well-crafted, internally coherent, and built on assumptions nobody checked. It does not take much to avoid: a handful of user conversations, an afternoon in the support tickets, a look at where people drop out. That is usually enough to change what gets designed, which is a different thing from changing how it looks. The related truth is that a redesign without a diagnosis tends to relocate the problem rather than remove it — the flow gets prettier, the drop-off moves one step later, and the same conversation happens again in eighteen months.
Outcomes
What changes
Fewer support tickets
, because a share of support volume is interface failure rather than user error and it is addressable.
Higher completion on the flows that matter
— signup, checkout, the core task — measured against what you were getting before rather than asserted.
A design system engineers can build from
Tokens, components and states specified properly, rather than a static file that leaves every edge case to be decided in code.
Decisions grounded in evidence
where evidence exists — usage data, support themes, session recordings, user interviews — and clearly labelled as judgement where it does not.
What we build
What we build
Product discovery and user research, information architecture, interaction design and prototypes, interface design across responsive breakpoints, design systems with full component specification, and accessibility-compliant design meeting WCAG AA.
We also redesign existing products, which begins by finding out what is actually failing rather than assuming it is the visuals — often it is information architecture, or a step that asks for something the user does not have to hand yet.
The unglamorous parts decide whether the design survives implementation: empty states, error states, loading behaviour, what happens on the smallest supported screen, and what a list looks like with one item and with a thousand. Designs that only specify the ideal case get finished by developers under deadline.
What you receive
What you receive
Prototypes you can click through, final interface designs across the breakpoints your product actually supports, and a design system specified for implementation rather than for presentation — components with their states, tokens for colour, type and spacing, and the rules for how things compose.
The distinction that matters is between a file that shows what screens look like and a specification an engineer can build from without inventing anything. Flat screens push every empty state, error state, loading state and edge case into the engineer's judgement at build time, which is where design intent quietly disappears. We specify those states because they are where real usage lives.
How it works
How it works
Research first
Users, usage data, support volume, competitive context. Scaled to budget but not removed — a small amount changes the outcome substantially.
Structure and flows
, before any interface work. Most serious usability problems are architectural.
Interface design
, across the breakpoints that matter to your users rather than a standard set.
Prototype and test
, because changing a prototype costs a fraction of changing shipped software.
System specification
, with components, states and tokens ready for implementation.
Six to twelve weeks for a substantial product, less for a defined set of flows; research-only engagements run two to three. Where we also build, design and engineering run together rather than sequentially, which removes the handover problem entirely.
Technology
What we work with
Tools we work with, none of which are the point. Design quality is not a function of software.
Design and prototyping: Figma, with prototypes clickable enough to test on rather than to admire.
Design system handover: tokens and component specifications in a form your engineers can implement directly, and documented in whatever your team already uses for component documentation rather than a parallel system they will not maintain.
Research: interviews, session recordings, support ticket analysis and whatever usage data already exists. The instrument matters far less than actually looking.
Where this applies
Where this applies
Strongest where the product is complex, where usage data shows people failing at a specific point, or where no design system exists and every screen is invented from scratch. Common in fintech and healthcare, where the cost of a misunderstood interface is measured in more than churn, and in education, where users span a wide range of confidence and context.
Weakest where the problem is that nobody has found the product yet. Design will not fix distribution, and we would rather say so than take a redesign that cannot move the number you care about.
Why us
One team, not three vendors
The usual way
- A strategy consultant, a development shop and a marketing agency, each scoped separately.
- Months spent getting three vendors to agree, and blame to allocate when something breaks.
- The model ships and adoption becomes somebody else's problem.
With Nexiour
- One team across strategy, engineering and growth. You skip the coordination tax entirely.
- We own the whole outcome — from the first audit to the system that is running.
- Delivery across the UK, UAE, Germany and India, with overlapping hours in four markets.
What it costs
How we scope and price
Fixed scope, quoted after an initial conversation. Cost is driven by product complexity, research depth, the number of flows in scope, and whether a full design system is required.
Research-only and audit engagements are available and are frequently the right first step — they are cheaper than a redesign and they often change what the redesign should be, or establish that you do not need one.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
We can design without research, and the result is a guess that looks confident. Even a small amount — five user conversations, an afternoon in the support tickets — changes the outcome substantially. Where budget is tight we scale research down rather than removing it.
Prototypes, final interface designs across breakpoints, and a specified design system with components, states and tokens ready for implementation.
When you cannot name the metric it should change. When the real problem is acquisition — a better interface does not help people who never arrive. When the product is still finding its shape, since you would be systematising something about to change. And when the team has no capacity to implement it, because a design system nobody builds from is an expensive document.
Yes, and it works better that way. Design handed over without engineering involvement reliably produces things that are expensive or impossible to build.
Yes. The first step is diagnosis — usage data, support themes, user sessions — because redesigning without knowing what is broken tends to move the problem rather than fix it.
Yes, to WCAG AA as standard. It is considerably cheaper to design for than to retrofit, and in a number of markets it is a legal requirement rather than a preference.
Six to twelve weeks for a substantial product, less for a defined set of flows. Research-only engagements are two to three weeks.
Related